Where did this theory stem from?
 

I posted a thread a few weeks ago about sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy.
The majority of you dispelled it as a myth or said that there just wasnt enough evidence to show that you can train for one type, more than the other.

Im posting this thread to find out abit more, and if those that tuned in and commented before, and anyone else that has anhing to add can do so, i'd be really greatful.

with Sarcoplasimic Hypertrophy, The amount of sarcoplasm increases inside the muscle, which makes i look bigger. Apparently though it doesn't last very long, and will disappear fairly quickly if you stop training.
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy also has no direct carry over to strength because it doesn't have the ability to contract and relax, as it isn't real muscle. Its also said that it gives you a puffier look to your muscles.

Myofibrillar hypertrophy on the other hand, is the actual growth of muscle fibres. The muscle looks more dense, and theres a direct carry over to strength.

Apparently different rep ranges trigger different types of hypertrophy, and although neither happen exclusively to the other, training in a higher rep range, provides the lifter with more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, and training with a lower rep range, gives you more myofibrillar hypertrophy.
Sarcoplasmic hyp is utilized more by pro bodybuilders, and myofibrillar triggered by powerlifters and strength athletes.


This was what most of you said there was no valid evidence for.

I'm well into my program and diet now, so I'm just asking out of pure interest.
What I want to know is this.

How did these theories come about? How did they become twisted, and whats the real truth.
If this isn't it, then what IS the reason, that powerlifters often look denser and than bodybuilders, and why do the pro bodybuilders, , often look more puffy?

Thanks :)

Did we? Or did we say it wasn't important in the grand scheme of things?

I don't recall saying the 2 different forms of hypertrophy were a myth. I recall saying that focusing on them was a waste of time in the grand scheme of things.

The things that are important are:

1) Consistent training.
2) Getting stronger.
3) Using a good selection of exercises.
4) Eating the proper amount of food for your goals.

My point was that chasing magic rep ranges, programs, PCF ratios, etc, was a waste of time, and completely misses the important things.

Too many guys de-value what's important, and over-inflate the minutiae.

I rank "forms of hypertrophy" on the same level as the "post-workout window of opportunity." Interesting to read about, but when the rubber hits the road you still need things framed with the basics listed above.

[QUOTE=BendtheBar;327477]Did we? Or did we say it wasn't important in the grand scheme of things?

I don't recall saying the 2 different forms of hypertrophy were a myth. I recall saying that focusing on them was a waste of time in the grand scheme of things.

A myth that you could train in a certain rep range to achieve one or the other, that was what I meant by the myth, I know that both exist.

I agree exactly with what you said, and now my program is focused entirely on the basic things like you told me.
I do find this interesting however.

Do you know why powerlifters often look different to bodybuilders though? Thats what I was wondering. If this doesn't give us a reason as to why they look different, then what does?

I follow a guy on youtube called Elliot Hulse. Hes a powerlifter, he looks like a bodybuilder, but his muscles seem to be harder and more dense. I've noticed this with other powerlifters also.
Was just curious.

This is the best line I've read in a long time, and its the absolute truth. Powerlifters look different because of a number of things. We don't need to get ripped to be competitive, a bigger bodyweight could help with leverages depending on how you are built, the style of training, the diets we use (or don't use). The fact is, you need to do the work to get strong. KISS applies here. Keep It Simple Stupid.

I think you have the wrong idea. I keep my workout very simple, I was asking just out of interest.
I wasn't really talking about their body fat percentage, or how ripped they are, more the actual structure of the muscle.

You'd probably have to do a great deal of research on the internet/books/articles and crossreference anything you find just to see if it contradicts another source and so forth, if you really are interested in persuing any data pertaining to the topic (one way or the other) until you find a satisfactory conclusion...that's what I do.

It's no different. You are just used to looking at genetic freaks, all jacked up on juice. Most of we PLers don't have those genetics. We are also built for function, not aesthetics, as you see BBers

Most don't look different. Not in the natural realm. Most top level non-natural lifters I know are jacked as well. In the AAS realm, bodybuilders look different because of cuts and chems - they take chems for size, and not strength. Big difference.

I work in the industry and have interviewed nearly every top natural in the game. I've spent time with everyone from Mr. NC to Mr. Minnesota.

I've talked to Doug Miller, and Shaun Clarida.

Top level natural powerlifters have just as much muscle mass as top level natural bodybuilders.

The only difference is bodyfat, and powerlifters don't bring up weak (small) muscle groups. They still have plenty of muscle. Let's look...

I am as big, or bigger than bodybuilder Marc Lobliner:

http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/mem...liner-crew.jpg

Yet here he looks like a monster compared to me. It's all bodyfat. Bodybuilding is an illusion.

http://www.stayfitcentral.com/wp-con...lr-200x300.jpg

Layne Norton...Natural freak right!

http://www.muscleprodigy.com/content...rview-1757.jpg

Layne Norton next to me:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot..._7169427_n.jpg

Eric Broser:

http://www.3dmusclejourney.com/resources/broser1.jpg

Eric Broser next to me:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot..._6705859_n.jpg

Me next to another massive natural:

http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/mem...odybuilder.jpg

My arms and forearms:

http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/mem...-steve-arm.jpg

My back:

http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/mem...11-13-2009.jpg

^ The point of all this is simple:

Bodybuilding is an illusion.

If (BIG IF) I got shredded I would be as big, if not bigger than every one of these guys. Eric Broser would be hard for me to beat!

Powerlifters have plenty of muscle. There are no Elite level powerlifters without a lot of muscle mass. There are some, a small percentage, who reach Elite levels in gear and don't look jacked, but they still weight 270+ pounds and have plenty of natural muscle under their fat.

Fat changes the game. It's an illusion.

Me, JB and Gaspers are huge. Max Misch and Fazc, if they got shredded, could hold their own at any natural bodybuilding show.

We powerlifters might not work small body parts and bring up weaknesses, but overall we have the same, or nearly the same muscle mass.

Who's that guy, the powerlifter that cut to bodybuilding looks? You probably recall his name, Steve, but I can't at the moment, there are images of before and after of him on the internet.